The new generation of watershed management

Integrated vs. embedded watershed management

Since the 1980s, environmental and socio-economic concerns have been integrated into watershed management programmes and projects. “Integrated watershed management” was a forerunner of sustainable rural development, as advocated at the 1992 Rio Summit. Both approaches share a systemic view of biophysical and social interactions, a concern for the short- and long-term effects of change, and a fundamental belief that appropriate social management can optimize the functioning of human ecosystems.

This shared paradigm suggests that it is difficult to distinguish integrated watershed management from sustainable development in watershed areas. Many examples exist of how natural resource management and socio-economic development goals have been integrated into watershed management. According to review participants, however, this approach has not always brought the intended positive impacts on both livelihoods and the natural environment.

In particular, it was found that too great a commitment to sustainable livelihoods and poverty alleviation goals could push watershed environmental objectives into the background. Trade-off issues between livelihood and environmental concerns then arose, based on renewed awareness that natural resource management and socio-economic development objectives may need to be addressed in different ways.

A fundamental dilemma about the relationship between watershed management programmes and sustainable development processes was considered: should watershed management programmes be integrated with sustainable development objectives, by committing to providing benefits and services that are not directly related to natural resource management, or should they be embedded in sustainable development processes, by ensuring that water, land and forest issues are considered in poverty alleviation and sustainable livelihoods activities?

The two options can be referred to as “integrated” and “embedded” watershed management, respectively. Some of their differences can be summarized as follows.